If you had to chose one David Robinson or Tim Duncan

[00playboy00]

I go with Tim Duncan mainly because i've seen him play throughout his whole career and only caught David Robinson play through his last couple seasons.

[Pushxx]

Almost everyone would and should take Duncan. Better playoff performer and defender.

[ImmortalD24]

No shit sherlock. Pretty sure it's been well established that Tim Duncan > D(twinkle toes)-Rob.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I loved Robinson as a kid but I think I have to go with Duncan because his teams won so much. That might not be fair because he played with more talent then Robinson did most of his career but to me winning is very important.

[BlackVVaves]

This isn't even debatable, why start a thread about a topic that is probably nearly unanimous in opinion OP?

[Micku]

David Robinson in the regular season. Tim Duncan in the playoffs because he stepped it up more.


Of course if you have to choose without knowing the fact that Duncan steps it up more in the playoffs, I would choose David Robinson. He was better at everything.

But Duncan's legacy might be different if he played more in the 90s like Robinson.

Give me Pop over both tho.

[Cali Syndicate]

No shit sherlock. Pretty sure it's been well established that Tim Duncan > D(twinkle toes)-Rob.

wow.

[Clifton]

Robinson was famous for empty numbers. Duncan is famous for the opposite. And his numbers are almost as good. I'll take Duncan without a second thought.

[Clifton]

But Duncan's legacy would be different if he played in the 90s like Robinson.

Give me Pop over both tho.

Two very good points made here. If I had to choose between Duncan and an above-average coach vs. Pop and an above-average PF, I'd take Pop. Probably just as readily as I'd take Duncan over Robinson. Coaches aren't normally that important, but Pop is the one exception. Perhaps Phil Jackson is another... perhaps. But I don't think so.

And yes... Duncan's era was crap for big men. Imagine if he had to go against Ewing and Rodman and Hakeem all the time whenever he got far into the playoffs. He's still one of the greatest ever, but he should not be understood as "dominant." He's a rock, he's consistent, he beats you with his teammates like few ever have. He's a GREAT defensive player. But his "offensive dominance" wouldn't even have been noticed in the 90s.

[Raz]

Robinson was famous for empty numbers. Duncan is famous for the opposite. And his numbers are almost as good. I'll take Duncan without a second thought.

Really?
1988-89 Spurs went 21-61
1989-90 Spurs went 56-26 and took the Portland Trailblazers to 7 games in the Semis.
That's a 35 game turnaround. Sure there were some other changes, moving a prime Alvin Robertson and Johnny Dawkins, and playing old man Maurice Cheeks and Rod Strickland instead. There was a rookie on the Spurs called Sean Elliot, but the team was mostly the same.

Look at The Spurs over Robinson's reign:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/

He was a match up nightmare, and by far the most athletic center ever.

[Smoke117]

Almost everyone would and should take Duncan. Better playoff performer and defender.

The only better defensive player to come along in the modern NBA than David Robinson is Hakeem Olajuwon.

[wang4three]

David Robinson. If it came the other way where Robinson came in '97 and Duncan came in '89, Robinson would be remembered as the better player. As far as individual skills, always thought Robinson had much more to bring to the table. Both are phenomenal players though.

[Harison]

Robinson was much better regular season player, Duncan was slightly better in the Playoffs. However considering David was a better defender, its a draw in the Playoffs, and a clear edge for DRob in the RS.

Majority is picking Duncan simply because of the perception of winning, ignoring different circumstances. Swap them, and the same majority would see them in a completely reversed light. Duncan wouldnt had won anything in the Golden age (no rings, no MVPs, no DPOYs), Robinson would had dominated current era much more than Duncan did (DRob would be a perennial MVP, DPOY, and as many rings as Duncan if not more).

[Overdrive]

Robinson was famous for empty numbers. Duncan is famous for the opposite. And his numbers are almost as good. I'll take Duncan without a second thought.

1989-90 & 1996-97 tell a different story.

If both were in the same draft today I'd take Robinson most likely.

Duncan had the better career, but it would've been interesting how Duncan's career start would've turned out if it wasn't for Robinson's injury. He might have ended up on those awful Celtics or Nets squads that weren't going anywhere.

[atljonesbro]

Sorry, basing things off woulda coulda shoulda isn't reputable. Duncan all day.